They say it cant be reused. Maybe some heavy metals leach out,you can do some more research on it. Their are also other more expensive cooling options.
And yes they could supply their own electricity, but they prefer the cheaper option of hooking up to the existing grid.
I don't care if they build them 100% with their own resources. And pay full taxes,like the other business in town. Why should they get a free ride? Local government has been giving away the farm to the fuktards. Up in Utah local politicians own hundreds of acres of land nearby,that they will make bank on. The same happens all over the country....
Water is cheap and convenient, but we don't use water to cool the contents of our refrigerators. We pump the heat out into the air. Industrial canning plants do the same thing. Computer centers used air conditioning, which I think was heat exchange with the surrounding air. I think it would be fair game to forbid the use of native water for computer cooling. Same story with power production. The engine in your car produces power, and the waste heat is rejected to the AIR...not to some convenient brook. So, the more you think on it, there is more basis for pushback on water utilization. If they want to generate their own electricity (the Trump preference), more power to them. Just so long as they can synchronize with the grid in the event of a calamity that requires emergency commandeering of power.
They can also build them on the north slope of alaska. Natural gas is almost free,as their is no pipeline. And power generation is very efficient at cold temperature. Cold air is dense with more oxygen.....
To be fair, it is very difficult to build anything on the North Slope. And since most of it is permafrost, it may not be a very good idea to generate a lot of thermal power in the immediate vicinity. Why don't we urge them to the open lands of Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? Maybe also eastern Washington and Oregon, and southeastern Idaho?
They can build on nearby rock. You just need to move the gas or electricity....
And they successfully build the pipeline and isolated it from the permafrost 50 years ago when they built it it's not that hard.
Anyways their is lots of crappy land,like you said. Main thing is,they need to cover 100% of the cost and pay taxes,like every other business. No free rides on the backs of the people.
They say it cant be reused. Maybe some heavy metals leach out,you can do some more research on it. Their are also other more expensive cooling options.
And yes they could supply their own electricity, but they prefer the cheaper option of hooking up to the existing grid.
I don't care if they build them 100% with their own resources. And pay full taxes,like the other business in town. Why should they get a free ride? Local government has been giving away the farm to the fuktards. Up in Utah local politicians own hundreds of acres of land nearby,that they will make bank on. The same happens all over the country....
Water is cheap and convenient, but we don't use water to cool the contents of our refrigerators. We pump the heat out into the air. Industrial canning plants do the same thing. Computer centers used air conditioning, which I think was heat exchange with the surrounding air. I think it would be fair game to forbid the use of native water for computer cooling. Same story with power production. The engine in your car produces power, and the waste heat is rejected to the AIR...not to some convenient brook. So, the more you think on it, there is more basis for pushback on water utilization. If they want to generate their own electricity (the Trump preference), more power to them. Just so long as they can synchronize with the grid in the event of a calamity that requires emergency commandeering of power.
They can also build them on the north slope of alaska. Natural gas is almost free,as their is no pipeline. And power generation is very efficient at cold temperature. Cold air is dense with more oxygen.....
To be fair, it is very difficult to build anything on the North Slope. And since most of it is permafrost, it may not be a very good idea to generate a lot of thermal power in the immediate vicinity. Why don't we urge them to the open lands of Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas? Maybe also eastern Washington and Oregon, and southeastern Idaho?
They can build on nearby rock. You just need to move the gas or electricity....
And they successfully build the pipeline and isolated it from the permafrost 50 years ago when they built it it's not that hard.
Anyways their is lots of crappy land,like you said. Main thing is,they need to cover 100% of the cost and pay taxes,like every other business. No free rides on the backs of the people.